The work intrusted to me of
preparing this volume evidently can be divided into two separate
parts. The first, the collecting of the material needed and the
setting of it before the reader in the English tongue; the other, the
preparation of suitable introductions and notes to the matter thus
provided. Now in each of these departments two courses were open
to the editor: the one, to be original; the other, to be a
copyist. I need hardly say that of these the former offered many
temptations. But I could not fail to recognize the fact that such
a course would greatly take from the real value of the work, and
therefore without any hesitation I have adopted the other alternative,
and have endeavoured, so far as was at all possible, to keep myself out
of the question altogether; and as a general rule even the translation
of the text (as distinguished from the notes) is not mine but that of
some scholar of well-established reputation.

In the carrying out of this method of procedure I have
availed myself of all the translations which I could find, and where,
after comparing them with the original, I have thought them
substantially accurate, I have adopted them and reproduced them.
Where I have thought that the translation was misleading, I have
amended it from some other translation, and, I think, in no case have I
ventured a change of translation which rests upon my own judgment
alone. A very considerable portion, however, of the matter found
in this volume is now translated into English for the first time.
For some of this I am indebted to my friends, who have most kindly
given me every assistance in their power, but even here no translation
has been made from the Greek without careful reference being had to the
traditional understanding, as handed down in the Latin versions, and
wherever the Latin and Greek texts differ on material points the
difference has been noted. I have not thought it necessary nor
desirable to specify the source of each particular translation, but I
have provided for the use of the reader a list of all the translations
which I have used. I should also add that I have not considered
any one text sufficiently well established as to command any deference
being paid to it, and that I have usually followed (for my own
convenience rather than for any other reason) the text contained in
Labbe and Cossart’s Concilia. No doubt Hardouin and
Mansi are in some respects superior, but old prejudices are very
strong, and the reader will remember that these differing
Concilia gave rise to a hard-fought battle in the history of the
Gallican Church. I should add, however, that where more recent
students of the subject have detected errors of importance in
Labbe’s text, I have corrected them, usually noting the variety
of reading. With regard then to the text I entirely disclaim any
responsibility, and the more so as on such a matter my opinion would be
entirely valueless. And with regard to the translation my
responsibility goes no further than the certifying the reader that, to
all intents and purposes, the meaning of the original is presented to
him in the English language and without interpretation being introduced
under the specious guise of translation. Some portions are mere
literal translations, viiiand some are
done into more idiomatic English, but all—so far as I am able to
judge—are fair renderings of the original, its ambiguities
being duly preserved. I have used as the foundation of the
translation of the canons of the first four synods and of the five
Provincial Synods that most convenient book, Index Canonum, by
the Rev. John Fulton, D.D., D.C.L., in which united to a good
translation is a Greek text, very well edited and clearly printed.

In preparing the other division of the book, that is to
say, the Introduction and Notes, I have been guided by the same
considerations. Here will be found no new and brilliant guesses
of my own, but a collection of the most reliable conclusions of the
most weighty critics and commentators. Where the notes are of any
length I have traced the source and given the exact reference, but for
the brief notes, where I have not thought this necessary, the reader
may feel the greatest confidence that he is not reading any surmises of
mine, but that in every particular what he reads rests upon the
authority of the greatest names who have written on the subject.
In the bibliographical table already referred to I have placed the
authorities most frequently cited.

I think it necessary to make a few remarks upon the rule
which I have laid down for myself with regard to my attitude on
controverted questions bearing upon doctrine or ecclesiastical
discipline. It seems to me that in such a work as the present any
expression of the editor’s views would be eminently out of
place. I have therefore confined myself to a bare statement of
what I conceive to be the facts of the case, and have left the reader
to draw from them what conclusions he pleases. I hope that this
volume may be equally acceptable to the Catholic and to the Protestant,
to the Eastern and to the Western, and while I naturally think that the
facts presented are clearly in accordance with my own views, I hope
that those who draw from the same premises different conclusions will
find these premises stated to their satisfaction in the following
pages. And should such be the case this volume may well be a step
toward “the union of all” and toward “the peace of
all the holy churches of God,” for which the unchanging East has
so constantly prayed in her liturgy.

I wish to explain to the reader one other principle on
which I have proceeded in preparing this volume. It professes to
be a translation of the decrees and canons of certain ecclesiastical
synods. It is not a history of those synods, nor is it a
theological treatise upon the truth or otherwise of the doctrines set
forth by those synods in their legislation. I have therefore
carefully restricted my own historical introductions to a bare
statement of such facts as seemed needed to render the meaning of the
matter subsequently presented intelligible to the reader. And
with regard to doctrine I have pursued the same course, merely
explaining what the doctrine taught or condemned was, without entering
into any consideration of its truth or falsity. For the history
of the Church and its Councils the reader must consult the great
historians; for a defence of the Church’s faith he must read the
works of her theologians.

I need hardly say that the overwhelming majority of the
references found in this volume I have had no opportunity of verifying,
no copy of many of the books being (so far as I know) to be found in
America. I have, however, taken great pains to insure accuracy in
reproducing the references as given in the books from which I have
cited them; this, however, does not give me any feeling of confidence
that they may be relied on, especially as in some cases where I have
been able to look them up, I have found errors of the most serious
kind.

ixIt now only remains
that I thank all those who have assisted me in this work, and
especially I must mention his Excellency the High Procurator of the
Holy Governing Synod of Russia, who directed the bibliographical table
of Russian editions of the Canons, etc., which is found in this volume,
to be prepared for me by Professor Glubokoffski of the Ecclesiastical
Academy at St. Petersburgh. My special thanks are due to the
learned professor just named for the very admirable manner in which he
has performed the work, and to Mr. W. J. Birkbeck, who has added one
more to his numerous labours for making the West better acquainted with
the East by translating the Russian ms. into
English. I cannot but pause here to remark how deep my regret is
that my ignorance of the Russian and Slavic tongues has prevented me
from laying before my readers the treasures of learning and the stores
of tradition and local illustration which these volumes must
contain. I am, however, extremely well pleased in being able to
put those, who are more fortunate than myself in this respect, in the
way of investigating the matter for themselves, by supplying them with
the titles of the books on the subject. I desire also to offer my
thanks to Professor Bolotoff for the valuable information he sent me as
well as for a copy of his learned (and often most just) strictures upon
Professor Lauchert’s book, “Die Kanones der wichtigsten
altkirchlichen Concilien nebst den Apostolischen Kanones.”
(Freiburg in B. und Leipzig, 1896.)

The Rev. Wm. McGarvey has helped me most kindly by
translating parts of the Second Council of Nice, and one or more of the
African Canons; and by looking over the translation of the entire
African Code.

The Rev. F. A. Sanborn translated two of St.
Cyril’s letters, and the Rev. Leighton Hoskins the Sardican
Canons. To these and many other of my friends, who in one way or
another helped me, I wish to return my deep thanks; also to the
Nashotah Theological Seminary and to the Lutheran Theological Seminary
at Mt. Airy, Philadelphia, for having placed their libraries entirely
at my disposal; nor can I end this list without mention of my sister,
who has assisted me most materially through the entire progress of the
work, and without whom I never could have undertaken it.

When I think of the great number of authors cited, of
the rapidity with which most of the translation has had to be done, of
the difficulty of getting access to the necessary books, and of the
vast range of subjects touched upon (including almost every branch of
ecclesiastical and theological learning), I feel I must throw myself
and my work upon the reader’s indulgence and beg him to take all
this in consideration in making his estimate of the value of the work
done. As for me, now that it is all finished, I feel like crying
out with the reader, in deep shame at the recollection of the many
blunders he has made in reading the lesson,—“Tu autem,
Domine, miserere nobis!”

In conclusion I would add that nothing I have written
must be interpreted as meaning that the editor personally has any doubt
of the truth of the doctrines set forth by the Ecumenical Councils of
the Christian Church, and I wish to declare in the most distinct manner
that I accept all the doctrinal decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Synods
as infallible and irreformable.